(Petroleum) geology in the movies: There Will Be Blood

23 March 2008

[This is a contribution to Accretionary Wedge #7.]

One of the most memorable movies I have ever seen happens to be about a geologist who strikes it rich with oil in Southern California of the early 1900s. It is also probably the only movie with quite a bit of geology in that has won two Oscars (but I am not really a movie junkie so corrections are welcome).

Of course, I am talking about There Will Be Blood, director Paul Thomas Anderson’s epic story about greed, religion, vengeance, murder, and other delightful human endeavors, written, shot, and acted so well that it is an instant classic, a piece of work comparable to the greatest Greek tragedies. Daniel Day-Lewis took home a second Oscar for his work, and there is a good reason for that: his performance is so powerful that in my mind the only other film character of comparable strength and weight and effect is John Proctor in “The Crucible“, …which also happens to be played by Daniel Day-Lewis.

Despite (and because of) its greatness, this movie is not for the faint-hearted. It is very unlike the average Hollywood production, and, if you want to leave the theater with that sweet reassurance of knowing exactly what is good and what is bad, well, then skip this one. Despite the almost unequivocal depiction by critics of the Daniel Day-Lewis character as a monster – and, I admit, Daniel Plainview is not exactly a charming person -, let’s recognize that many of his thoughts and emotions are not foreign to most individuals that belong to the ‘Homo sapiens’ species. To me, the most scary and most monstrous character of the movie is Eli Sunday, the equally greedy but extremely irrational and hypocritical church leader and faith healer, played very convincingly by Paul Dano.

In any case, it is worth suffering through the two-and-a-half hours, if for nothing else but the realistic depiction of the oil industry at the beginning of the twentieth century. The movie does very well in terms of ‘geological correctness’; certainly much better than most disaster movies with Bruce Willis in the driving seat saving the World from the evil forces of Nature. The only minor issue I can think of is whether it is possible to find oil in a silver mine (Daniel Plainview is a silver prospector before he turns into an oil man). It’s been a long time since I read anything about ore deposits, but silver likes to accumulate in somewhat ~~hotter~~ different places than oil (unless it is in placer deposits).

Still, the best geological ‘delicacy’ in the movie comes at the very end. I would have never thought that you can make petroleum geology (or reservoir engineering) the centerpiece of a shocking movie scene, replete with human tragedy and profound proclamations about delicate philosophical issues.

Further reading: an excellent little piece about the geological aspects of the movie here.

And finally, here is a passage that gives an idea of how some people think about geologists (source):

“The fact is, Plainview is barely human to begin with, so watching him grow coarser and uglier and more full of himself seems a theme more suited to a geologist than a storyteller.”

Ouch.

Some questions about the ‘megatsunami-chevrons’

9 March 2008

3 Comments

The allegedly tsunami-related chevron-shaped nearshore deposits are back in the center of attention, at least among geo-bloggers. And rightly so: the idea that lots of coastal sand sheets all over the world were generated by relatively recent, impact-related mega-tsunamis of unimaginable scale is a fascinating hypothesis and, if proven true, it would revolutionize not only our understanding of frequency of meteorite impacts, but also change the predominant views about coastal geomorphology.

However, I have to confess that I find the geomorphologic and sedimentologic side of the argument fairly weakly constructed and documented, at least in the papers I was able to google up. Here are a few questions that could be asked to clarify some issues.

Many of the aerial photographs of the so-called chevrons could be used as textbook examples of parabolic dunes. Parabolic dunes are U-shaped wind-blown dunes usually fed by coastal sand deposits. Their nose points in a downwind direction, that is, the opposite way from barchan dunes. While wind strengths, direction, and sediment source are the main players in the generation of barchan dunes, vegetation plays a key role in the development of parabolic dunes. The ‘arms’ of a parabolic dune are left behind because they have a lower migration rate than the main body and the nose. The lower migration rate is due to plant growth in areas of lower sedimentation and/or erosion. There is a strong correlation between vegetation cover and dune migration rate or activity. This image comes from a recent paper by Duran et al.,

and it shows active (on the left) and inactive (on the right) parabolic dunes. Here is a sketch (source):

So the question is: if ‘chevrons’ are indeed different from classic eolian parabolic dunes, what is this difference, both geomorphologically and sedimentologically? Are they internally stratified? Do they show large-scale cross-bedding? What are the typical grain size distributions? Are they different from typical wind-blown sand? (One of the arguments is that large boulder fields occur in several places; however, my impression is that the boulders described here do not occur within, below, above, or right next to any chevron deposits. This short report claims that large pieces of rock are all over the place in the Madagascar chevrons, but no actual data is presented). The Madagascar chevrons featured in the New York Times show the signatures of typical parabolic dunes: U-shape, vegetated back sides and sandy crest plus nose. Why would an old tsunami deposit be vegetated only in certain places? The simple fact that these dunes are not entirely covered by vegetation suggests that their sandy parts do consist of wind-blown sand. Of course, tsunami deposits can be reworked by the wind, but why would the tsunami-related morphology be so well in tune with the eolian signature?

Second, if the chevrons are indeed produced by tsunamis, the tsunamis must have been humongous. Dune heights are related to flow depth, and a rule of thumb is that flow depth has to be around 6 times the dune height. So a 50 m high dune would require a 300 m high wave. Is that really possible? How big an impact do you need to generate such humongous waves? Also, what about the backwash? Why are most of the chevron dunes pointing systematically in one direction, and do not seem to be altered by any seaward oriented flow?

Third, are any features of the chevrons consistent with what we know about well-documented recent and ancient tsunami deposits? Tsunami-related sandy layers tend to be comparable to turbidites: largely unstratified, normally graded units suggesting rapid deposition from flows of decreasing velocity; they do not show large-scale cross bedding that requires relatively steady flow over longer time scales. In contrast, the chevron morphologies suggest that they are internally well-stratified, as the result of stoss-side avalanches. Here is a sand layer from the 1998 Papua New Guinea tsunami (source):

Obviously, it may turn out that there are tsunami-related coastal dunes and wind-blown parabolic dunes, with very similar morphologies, but fundamentally different origins. At the moment, the geomorphologic and sedimentologic evidence for this extraordinary hypothesis seems quite preliminary. And, needless to say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

ps. 1: Lots of information on tsunami deposits here.
And a paper arguing for wind-blown origin of some deposits from the Bahamas, previously interpreted as tsunami-related: Kindler, P. & Strasser, A. (2000) Palaeoclimatic significance of co-occurring wind- and water-induced sedimentary structures in the last-interglacial coastal deposits from Bermuda and the Bahamas. Sedimentary Geology 131, 1-7.

ps. 2: More good stuff on megatsunamis and their deposits at Highly Allochthonous.

Teaching of evolution in Romania: an endangered species

1 March 2008

2 Comments

Romania is one of those countries that, after the fall of supposedly atheistic communist governments, are still struggling with the place of religion in public life and in education. The new Romanian constitution goes beyond guaranteeing freedom of religion and explicitly endorses state support for religious organizations (“Religious cults shall be autonomous from the State and shall enjoy support from it, including the facilitation of religious assistance in the army, in hospitals, prisons, homes and orphanages.” – article 29). Yes, that is right: religious cults are autonomous but they enjoy state support. In other words, they do what they want with taxpayer money. Historically established religious denominations get government recognition; this is a major issue, because in practice only those religions enjoy ‘religious freedom’ who are recognized by the government. In other words, “Recognized religions have the right to establish schools, teach religion in public schools, receive government funds to build churches, pay clergy salaries with state funds and subsidize clergy’s housing expenses, broadcast religious programming on radio and television, apply for broadcasting licenses for denominational frequencies, and enjoy tax-exempt status.” (source). Note that the majority of Romanians see absolutely no problems with the government giving money to religious organizations, including funding for teaching religion in public schools. Religious institutions enjoy almost unlimited trust from the public (as opposed to the senate, the parliament, or universities), and if you dare to criticize a priest or a religious organization, you will quickly find yourself under a flood of attacks from people of all walks of life.

In parallel with the state-supported resurgence of religious life, the boundaries between secular and religious education are getting blurred. At the end of 2006, the secretary of state for research and education at that time, Mihail Hardau, signed a ruling that eliminated virtually all references to evolution from the science standards for public schools. In the meantime, 73% of the Romanian high-school students already think that the universe and humans were created by God. Scientific literacy is so low in the country that very few people see this as a negative development; even some biology teachers say that Darwinism does not necessarily contradict creationism and it is out of date anyway. Most journalists and politicians who express an opinion on the subject only prove that they did not even take the time to look up the words “Darwinism” and “evolution” in a dictionary.

This is sad news for me. I learned basic biology in communist Romania, in the eighties, and at that time there was no place for God and creationism in biology classes.[Of course, that was about the only good thing about communism — so I am delighted it is a thing of the past, do not get me wrong]. Although my understanding of evolution largely comes from popular science books rather than those old biology lectures, at least you could not finish high school without hearing about Darwin and evolution. Now it is different: it has become difficult to get through the public education system without being indoctrinated (on taxpayer money) with the dogma of your favorite religion, and you might only hear about Darwin in the context of outdated atheistic thinkers who are not relevant any more.

If you want to help, here is the email address of the Romanian Ministry of Education: informare.publica@medu.edu.ro; more info here. Also, if you have a blog or website, feel free to spread the word. More people in Romania and outside Romania need to realize that the integrity of science education in one of the largest countries in Europe is at stake here.

A new way to enjoy photographs

28 February 2008

1 Comment

Anybody who takes more than ten photos per year (and everybody has at least a point-and-shoot camera these days) needs a good online photo sharing service. I have been a diehard fan of Smugmug for several years now. I love the elegant, somewhat Apple-like interface, the slick animations, the ability to easily organize and tag photos, the fact that pictures can be displayed at seven different sizes, that it is easy and fast to order high-quality prints, not to mention the significant integration with Google Maps and Google Earth. While I have realized that Flickr seems better equipped for more ‘Web 2.0’ interactivity (maybe largely due to the sheer number of users and photographs), and that there are far more photographs of turbidites on Flickr than Smugmug , I find the Flickr user interface confusing and its design inferior to that of Smugmug, with a lack of style that does not do justice to the zillions of great photos that are out there on the servers.

Having said that, I have recently started to use and appreciate Flickr a lot more. The reason: the updated Apple TV can stream photos directly from Flickr. Television sets with high-definition screens might be a bit ahead of the time due to the limited number of easily (and cheaply) available HD TV programming and movies, but they are perfect for displaying even relatively low-resolution photographs in brilliant colors and surprising clarity. After all, the best HDTVs have a pixel count of 1080 x 1920, and you get more than two megapixels with most digital cameras. Sitting down with a glass of wine and discovering good photographs on a big screen while listening to music is my favorite new pastime and I think it is a lot more enjoyable than browsing photos on much smaller computer screens that usually have a lot of clutter in addition to the photograph.

Now, if Apple was smart and kind enough to put Smugmug on Apple TV as well…

Dish structures

23 February 2008

3 Comments

Dish structures are sedimentary structures found in thick sand (or sandstone) that have concave-up, bowl-like shapes. They form when water is trying to escape from rapidly deposited sand but encounters horizontal barriers of somewhat lower permeability (usually zones with smaller grain size and/or dispersed mud). These force the water to flow laterally until it finds a place where it can go upward again. In the meantime, the subtle permeability differences get enhanced as muddy particles are washed away from the cleaner parts of the sand and concentrated in zones of lower permeability. The sides of these lower perm zones bend upward as the water finds its way up. Eventually pillar structures, vertical zones of cleaner sands can form on the sides of the dishes.

Initially dish structures were thought to be related to the (still somewhat fuzzy) mechanics of sediment transport and deposition in high-concentration gravity flows. However, clear examples that showed primary sedimentary structures (like cross lamination) being cross cut by dish structures proved that the latter are secondary structures, formed soon after deposition.

Probably because rapid deposition of sand is a requirement for the formation of dishes, these sedimentary structures are largely restricted to deep-water sands. Here are some examples that I think are blogworthy:

This one is from the northern California coast. Note the pillar structures between the dishes. [Apologies for the lack of scale – I think this bed is about 4 feet thick].

This is a zoom-in of dish structures in the Cerro Toro Formation of Southern Chile. Lighter-colored areas probably contain less mud than the darker zones.

No scale on this one either (there was no way I could climb up there), but trust me, these are probably among the largest dish structures in the known universe. They were photographed in northern Peru, near the town of Talara.

And to prove that they are really big, here is a photo that gives an idea of their scale:

Geologic misconceptions: 2D vs. 3D

23 January 2008

3 Comments

[This is a contribution to Accretionary Wedge #5]

One of the problems that a geologist is often faced with is the difficulty of reconstructing a complex three-dimensional geometry and history from limited information that is often one-dimensional (e.g., well data, cores) or two-dimensional (outcrops, 2D seismic sections). Humans in general, and geologists in particular tend to look for evidence where the light is better, and we are tempted to think that the beautiful core we have described, the one good outcrop face we have, the one textbook-quality seismic line on our wall is a good representation of the geology and stratigraphy of a much broader area, and that one can build a coherent story without knowing much about the third dimension.

That, of course, may well be true of ‘layercake’ stratigraphy: after all, a single thickness value can be used to fully characterize the geometry of a layer that has the same thickness over a large area. But, as Brian points out, ‘layercake stratigraphy’ should be considered an oxymoron: every sedimentary layer shows some thickness variations if traced for a long enough distance, even if some layers change their thickness more slowly than others. Stratigraphy is only layercake-like for human observers; subtle but persistent variations in thickness and relief can become striking geometries with some vertical exaggeration. Again, if this variation only occurred in one direction, a two-dimensional section along the same direction would summarize very well the whole story.

However, complex three-dimensionality is the rule rather than the exception in geology. Take for example a meandering river: its geometry is complex enough as it is, a single snapshot of a snaky morphology in time. But try imagining what happens as point bars and levees are deposited and cutbanks are cut; the channel changes its position over time and, over thousands and hundreds of thousands of years, it leaves behind an extremely complicated stack of deposits that would probably be difficult to fully understand even if you somehow could see and describe everything at the greatest detail in 3D. Obviously, a nice outcrop or a number of cores through such a deposit can provide a wealth of information, but we would be fooling ourselves if we thought that a single fining-upward sequence with some cross-bedding (that is, the classic point-bar facies model) was enough to understand a fluvial system.

But strong three-dimensionality is not restricted to fluvial deposits; look at any present-day depositional system in Google Earth and you will find that alluvial fans, deltas, barrier islands and tidal inlets, wind-blown dune fields are all intricate patterns, usually with lines running in more than one direction. Yet many of the classic facies and stratigraphic models are either one- or two-dimensional. Maybe, probably, these are necessary and useful simplifications and conceptual models, but they can only be useful if one is also aware how far they are from capturing the full 3D complexity of nature.

That being said, I have to add that 3D is not always better than 2D. Nowadays, some of the best three-dimensional geological datasets are 3D seismic surveys, and, with the increasing availability of such gold-mines of stratigraphic beauty (there are other uses as well, but let’s focus on one thing for now 🙂 ) it is easy to fall victim to the temptations of colorful three-dimensional displays. Despite claims like ‘3D interpretation and visualization are the future’, the truth is that a good set of old-fashioned maps and cross sections are more valuable in the long term than some glossy presentation slides with no exact spatial location.

Unless, of course, you can visualize and share your data relying on an easy-to-use and truly three-dimensional viewer. Like Google Earth. Even William Smith would be excited about that.

Detail from “Geological view and section through Dorsetshire and Somersetshire to Taunton, on the road through Yeovil toWimborn[e] Minster, &c.”, by William Smith, 1819. Source: Oxford Digital Library

Geo-highlights from Hindered Settling 2007

13 January 2008

Absurd catastrophism

12 January 2008

4 Comments

If there was an icon for ‘blogging on non-peer-reviewed non-research’, in the style of ‘blogging on peer-reviewed research’, this post would qualify for it. Although it is advertised as publishing “cutting-edge, peer-reviewed, creationist research papers”, Answers Research Journal (published by Answers in Genesis) is definitely not cutting-edge, not peer-reviewed, and is clearly not research. The evidence: the first few materials that are available online. There is a paper on “catastrophic granite formation”; here is a passage that gives you a flavor:

“Thus the formation of granite intrusions in the middle to upper crust involves four discrete processes — partial melting, melt segregation, magma ascent, and magma emplacement. According to conventional geologists (Petford et al. 2000), the rate-limiting step in this series of processes in granite magmatism is the timescale of partial melting (Harris, Vance, and Ayres 2000; Petford, Clemens, and Vigneresse 1997), but “the follow-on stages of segregation, ascent, and emplacement can be geologically extremely rapid – perhaps even catastrophic.” However, as suggested by Woodmorappe (2001), the required timescale for partial melting is not incompatible with the 6,000–7,000 year biblical framework for earth history because a very large reservoir of granitic melts could have been generated in the lower crust in the 1,650 years between Creation and the Flood, particularly due to residual heat from an episode of accelerated nuclear decay during the ﬁrst three days of the Creation Week (Humphreys 2000; Vardiman, Snelling, and Chafﬁn 2005). This very large reservoir of granitic melts would then have been mobilized and progressively intruded into the upper crust during the global, year-long Flood when the rates of these granite magmatism processes would have been greatly accelerated with so many other geologic processes due to another episode of accelerated nuclear decay (Humphreys, 2000; Vardiman, Snelling, and Chafﬁn 2005) and catastrophic plate tectonics (Austin et al.1994), the likely driving mechanism of the Flood event.”

Here is what I honestly do not understand. Let’s accept for a moment the idea that granites can form relatively fast, and pretend that radioactive dating has some major issues, as these people claim (it doesn’t, of course), so that all the granites on Earth fit the 6000-year timeframe. But what about the stuff that the granites were generated from? That must be older, right? And if the whole crust is less than a few thousand years old, what about the mantle? And, if one can speculate about “accelerated nuclear decay during the ﬁrst three days of the Creation Week” or “catastrophic plate tectonics”, why not just say that granites were created on the second day, after the mantle was ready to start convection by the end of the first day? Or, even better and simpler (Occam’s razor!), why not just come up with something like:

And God said, Let there be granite: and there was granite. And God saw the granite, that it was good: and God divided the crust from the mantle.

I am looking forward to the time when somebody realizes that the Universe was created yesterday, and it is only an illusion that we have been around for a bit longer than that. Imagine all the wonderful research opportunities that such a revolutionary working hypothesis would generate. I can already see papers and headlines like:

Updated relativity theory shows that time is shorter than you think

Plate tectonic hit-and-run: after hitting North America yesterday with several microcontinents, the Pacific Plate continued to subduct as if nothing happened

Fossil record from 4:15 pm yesterday shows that lightning-fast giant snails were abundant on Earth for more than 7 minutes

Accelerated ice flow during the last few minutes of Creation Hour is likely responsible for death of Ötzi the iceman

Scuba diver killed by massive rain of pelagic forams

Catastrophic hair growth in early humans

Additional research ideas are welcome; ‘Answers Research Journal’ is calling for papers now.

UPDATE: In my rush to publish the above results, I forgot to mention some previous work on similar subjects: Afarensis ~~– an expert in~~ points to the Precambrian archaeolog~~y –~~ist, who suggested long ago that the Cambrian explosion was caused by a bacteria trying to form a synthesis with a mitochondria and that peanut butter is a leftover from this explosion. I would only add that there is new evidence suggesting that the Precambrian started at 1 am yesterday, after Creation Hour ended, and it probably lasted for several hours, until the bacteria committed adultery.